Good point. However, my claim is not that “EA should be cool” and we should work to make it mainstream… I pretty much agree with you on that. My point is that EA should put more effort into building its own narrative to the general public (and it doesn’t mean trying to make it look cool), otherwise it will be built by someone else, and the outcome will very likely not be beneficial for EA itself.
Igor Scaldini
Karma: 181
Building on the strong points you and others raised (especially ethai), I think one factor working against data-driven marketing in EA orgs is how cautious EAs tend to be when deciding what to do. There’s often a lot of overthinking and a desire to fully resolve details before launching anything.
This trait is very valuable in many contexts, but it can work against growth, where success depends on fast learning and experimentation.
Saying “we tried growth for a year and it didn’t work” doesn’t mean much if “trying growth” mostly meant spending three months debating Facebook ad copy, running a campaign for a few weeks, and then spending another three months overthinking the results rather than rapidly testing more variations (I’m using ads just as a simple example, but ofc growth marketing goes way beyond testing Ads).
Small for-profit companies also can’t just “keep putting in time and money for hypothetical return at some undetermined threshold, or take out loans or get VC money to sink into big upfront acquisition costs”, so I don’t think it’s a fair argument (in fact, it might be case that it’s easier for a small EA org to get funded than it is to the vast majority of for-profit businesses out there).
In that case, the best approach is to build a lead scoring system that assigns a value to each trait/behavior you believe translates into the impact you want to drive—of course, it will never be a perfect translation, but that’s okay as long as it makes sense. Then, with a good CRM, you can assign each lead a score (originated from your lead scoring logic) and plug this info into your analytics, so it becomes part of your reports, conversion tracking, etc. This is pretty much what businesses that optimize for lifetime value (instead of immediate ROI), like investment banks and subscription-based services, do nowadays.
Of course, all of this requires a good amount of work and investment in a good CRM and Analytics. If you can’t afford this sort of complexity/cost for now, I’d simply recommend picking a conversion which is as close as possible to the impact you want to create, and be at peace with the fact that this is better than doing nothing. :)
As a marketer, I think EAs overlook the fact that a narrative will form whether you like it or not (because humans makes sense of things—at least complex things—through narratives/stories), and it’s virutally always better to shape your own narrative than to let one emerge by accident.
It seems like EA has a pretty serious branding issue, and people aren’t doing anything because creating your own narrative “feels wrong”.
What a wonderful piece! I’ve always wondered why some people choose not to share their donations. Being perceived as a “bragger” in exchange for potentially influencing people around you to donate, always sounded like a good trade-off. Your points clarified a bunch of things here. Thank you!
Why not just admit everyone? After all, why would someone who isn’t genuinely interested in EA want to attend such an event in the first place? It’s not like there will be free rounds of margaritas or flashy perks to attract random attendees.
The idea of a small group deciding what qualifies as a “high-quality participant” also feels overly elitist. In fact, I often think EAs have more to learn from so-called “less educated” people than the other way around.
That said, I do admire the transparency behind the process.
Thank you for this article, Michel!
I’m happy to know! That was the goal. :)
Thanks, Robert! Your comment made me think. If I understand your point correctly, marketing would be a problem if it is used to grow at the expense of other organizations—and I agree with you on that. However, I only can see this happening is if two or more organizations target the same audience, which I think is unlikely and avoidable in most cases. Do you think my reasoning makes sense?
Although I’m not sure (because I don’t have enough knowledge) if your claim on “not eating animals is the more rational choice for 90%+ people reading this” is correct, I liked this mental model.
As a member of EA community and an altruist, I eat meat. Not because it’s cheaper (it’s not, at least in Brazil), it’s convenient (I live in a massive city with a lot of vegan options), or it’s rational (I’m not sure if it is) but because eating is more then putting calories in...
Eating is a social activity. It’s about belonging and connections.
And what is our most important need after physiological and safety, according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?
Belonging and Love.
So I believe most people don’t go vegan (EAs or not) because it’s hard to adapt to this lifestyle socially, unless other vegans surround you.
I don’t have a definitive solution to this puzzle (to have more vegans, we need more vegans). Still, I would like to share my view on that because I think what most vegan advocates get wrong is framing “eating” as a purely rational and physiological activity.
It’s like soccer. 40.000 people doesn’t go to the stadium because it’s rational to watch 22 guys running for a soccer ball, but because their social lives are embedded on it.
Although I don’t think EA should go mainstream and have its message diluted, I think this statement is wrong. Unqualified and qualified applicants would have the same probability of stumbling across EA if it ever goes mainstream. I think this idea that “smart people don’t consume mainstream stuff” is very wrong.